City of David: An obstacle to peace?

“Sixty Minutes” recently did a spot on Ir David (“The City of David”), the archeological site located in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan, home to a few hundred Jews and a majority Arab population. Here’s the video of the segment, hosted by Lesley Stahl:

I was eager to watch it, thinking it was going to be an exciting look at some incredible ancient ruins being uncovered, but instead Stahl focused almost entirely on the political ramifications of the dig. By the time the 14 minutes and change were over, I wasn’t sure which she thought was the bigger obstacle to peace in the Middle East: Jews digging in united Jerusalem to uncover their glorious past, or Jews living in united Jerusalem near where Jews are digging up their glorious past.

Here are a few of her observations in the segment, which need no elaboration or response from me:

Regarding Clinton’s Simple Plan for divvying up Jerusalem according to population distribution: “It’s not so simple anymore.”

“It’s controversial that the City of David uses discoveries to try to confirm what’s in the Bible, particularly from the time of David, the king who made Jerusalem his capital.”

“There’s an implicit message that because David conquered the city for the Jews back then, Jerusalem belongs to the Jews today.”

Regarding the tours of the site provided for soldiers in the IDF: “Archeology is being used as a political tool. Maybe—I hate to use the word, but—‘indoctrination’ almost.”

I worked for a while on a long post addressing some of the inanities in her presentation of the facts, but decided it just wasn’t worth it. Hameveen meveen.

Advertisements

Share this:

Like this:

Related

8 Responses

Thanks Shimshonit for posting this video. Frankly, I though it was pretty silly. For the life of me, I just do not understand the resistance of Jews having their Holy Temple back and dwell amongst its ancestry. I agree with one of the interviewees that Muslims have their much, much holier places that they pilgrimage too in Saudi Arabia. I have noticed while in Shabbat service that we pray towards Jerusalem. It would be nice if, in actuality, the Jews had a Holy place to direct their attention too. Maybe I am off base, but it seems that people outside of Judaism just don’t get it.

The child getting hit by the car was shocking. I understand why it happened but it was still shocking. Children should be playing in back yards and not tools for violence. Funny, I did not see Jews throwing rocks or being violent. All I saw was busy little beavers digging up a ton of earth.

James: I don’t know how much air time that video of the stone-throwing got outside Israel, but it was pretty viral here. It did not escape the notice of Israelis that the kids ran right out in front of the car, and that the ambush was orchestrated not only to trap cars for stoning, but to be recorded. See all the photographers? The press was invited to this staged attack, but the unsavvy public’s shock is still reserved for the Jewish driver who hit the kids.

The City of David was one of my favorite parts of our 2007 trip. The tour guides are excellent, almost (or more) knowledgeable than history professors.

“It’s controversial that the City of David uses discoveries to try to confirm what’s in the Bible, particularly from the time of David, the king who made Jerusalem his capital.” Isn’t too bad, Ms. Stahl, that history backs the Jews? Jews lived in Jerusalem before the Jordanians kicked them out in 1948. (I keep erasing what I really want to say about Leslie Stahl).

Leora: I have yet to take a tour of Ir David. Now I REALLY want to see it. As for Stahl’s comment that it’s controversial to use archeology to confirm the Bible, I’m afraid that’s what an archeologist in Israel does for a living. What else? It would have been more accurate to say, “It’s very upsetting to Western, secular, pro-Arab Gentiles when archeology keeps confirming the events described in the Bible.”

Risa: I thought the same thing when I watched this. “Can she get ANYTHING right?”

I have been obsessing over this 60 minutes piece a little. I am liberal leaning individual, but I live off facts and this piece had little facts that couldn’t back up its agenda.

Facts I got out of the video: Palestinians sold their land and Israelis bought it, it did not say anything about stealing. If the Palestinians did not want the Israelis to buy their properties, they shouldn’t have sold it too them.

Facts I got out of the video: I can’t believe that 60 Minutes producers thought that showing staged lynch mobs throwing rocks at Israeli cars and putting their own children in harms way was going to draw sympathy. Heck, if I was in the same situation, I would have done the same thing. Get the heck out of there before I get lynched. They actually thought this was going to pull on my sympathetic heart strings for the plight of the Palestinians? For me, fighting back does not make one a victim anymore. Plus, who is the aggressor here. I could go on and on.

Frankly, I think Israelis and Palestinians are pretty rough on each other, but, come on, 60 Minutes. If you are going to have an agenda, at least use facts that support you’re perspective. That is why I thought the whole thing was silly.

[…] when Lesley Stahl brought her “60 Minutes” crew to do a spot on it for the show. My blog post of that event highlights some of the more absurd things she said, being much more interested in the sensational […]